The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left (and Right)

The modern police state has been brewing for a long time. The framework and infrastructure to support it was put in place well before 9/11.

The two major political parties in the US are both equally responsible for allowing the constitution and bill of rights to be rolled up and filed away
under 'blue laws' not to be taken seriously. In fact, if you dare to mention them in polite company, you may be laughed at.

While there is plenty of blame to go around, I have to give special credit to the current administration, the Democrats and the 'left' in general for
stepping up the pace in recent years and transforming what ought to be our civil servants into our master overseers.

Even with such a dramatic deterioration of our society, in the face of these transgressions, I have yet to see a concerted effort or even popular will
to begin to roll back the obvious overreaches of government at every level.

There really isn’t much difference between the Cheney-Kristol neocons of the Left and the Obama-Pelosi-Clinton leftists, when you get right down
to it.

And I refer to leftists or to the Left rather than using the common term “liberals,” because they are not liberal. For me, “liberal” describes
someone who advocates liberating people, someone who believes in freedom.

The Left consists of people who believe otherwise, even the opposite of genuine liberalism and liberation. They want laws and regulations which tie
people down and chain them up and restrain their freedom.

And what else but a police state could describe the Left’s desired situation of a State armed to the teeth with a totally disarmed and defenseless
civilian population?

In my view, deep down, many people on the Left delight in seeing S.W.A.T. teams invade a small business to “crack down” on people who do their
bankingwith “suspiciously” small amounts of cash, or those who apparently didn’t send the IRS enough of their earnings.

By inflicting door-to-door searches in Watertown, officials were really telling people that all residents themselves were suspects in harboring an
escaped suspect, and they needed to be ordered out of their homes and the homes searched to prove their innocence.

In contrast, given an advisory in New Hampshire, residents would have had their weapons available, ready and waiting. Had Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
attempted to invade or break into someone’s home there, the resident more likely would have fought back, or at least brandished a weapon in defense
and/or shot the home invader.

Which brings me to the dreaded gun control issue. Following the Sandy Hook School shooting, in which 20 children and 7 adults were murdered by a
deranged psychopath, the push to further disarm the people in the already fifth strictest anti-gun state went into overdrive.

No matter how hard rational people attempt to get it through numbskulls — that violent criminals don’t care about gun laws just as they don’t
care about laws against murder — the people on the Left continue on their legislative rampages to further disarm law-abiding people and make them
defenseless.

The atrocious ObamaCare is the “thrill up the legs” for those passionate police statists on the Left. We already can see the excitement in the
faces of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, just the thought of thousands new IRS agents and their S.W.A.T. teams going out and harassing and terrorizing
innocent Americans in enforcing the tax-fine-thefts of ObamaCare’s dictatorial mandates and restrictions.

After ObamaCare implodes as it was obviously intended to do, Dictator Obama will get the masses to beg him to get his desired “Single Payer” plan
through, which will lead to what he and others on the Left really dream of, their beloved SovietCare.

Alas, too many of today’s “liberals” are not really liberal. They oppose freedom and choice in medical care, they support the State’s power to
invade private property without suspicion or probable cause, and just too many people now wholeheartedly condemn the thought of cutting the chains of
enslavement by bureaucrats and liberating the people from the imprisonment of the State.

There are plenty other police state policies pushed by the Left, such as NDAA indefinite detention and Common Core, but I think I’ve made my
point.

Nice thread, it's going to go over like a turd in a punch bowl with our, let's just say "progressive" members here.

Look bottom line is there are millions of people in America who just want to be taken care of instead of having the freedom to succeed or fail on
their own. And because there are so many people like that we have the political/police State now. Let's face it, freedom is hard work and sadly
many people are just not up for it.

I agree with not calling them liberals, there is nothing "liberal" about the "hate crime", "hate speech", "thought police" society they want
to enforce on everyone. As for obamacare it's worse than the Soviet system. At least in the USSR you weren't charged for it, obamacare is more
insidious. It forces the populous to buy a product from a private company or pay a tax or go to jail.

Who in their right mind thinks this is acceptable? If the government can do this what can't they do? Nothing. The government can do anything and
everything for you, to you, and with you, it wants. This is the world the left wanted and now they have it.

It seems to have to do with the "praxis" of "governing" the people rather than those stupid "abstract" ideas found in the bill of rights. And
"democracy", the force and right of the majority in power, rather than a republic.

Right now we see the progressives with their billy clubs out trying to subdue one branch of the power division not under their control and claiming
the right to do so based on an idea of "democratic mandate" over the objections of the constitutional safeguards of a power division.

The Constitutionalist party, The Tea Party, The Libertarian Party ect, are seen by most of these entrenched as simply emanations of the last wisps of
these "freedom ideologues". A noisome chattering from ghosts of the past that can be overcome through the "democratic" processes of defeating their
enemies. Calling the republicans a party "held hostage" by the Tea Party is a good sign however.

You need to take the right out of your title because it is misleading. The article is nothing but a right wing whinefest.

The Police State: A Ghastly Product of the Left

That's a joke the police state is a direct result of the Patriot Act. And it wasn't the Democrats that pushed it through in the middle of the
night.

Here's the part I found funny.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” not the “right of the government to keep and bear
arms.” Sadly, given their love for the State, the people on the Left seem to have that backwards.

Somebody didn't read about the history of the second amendment before writing this article.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution;
neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal
government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not
having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

The second amendment was under attack long before this administration took office.

You misunderstand me a little I think. It is not surprising though as I am essentially saying that the 'right' (meaning mainstream party
Republicans) are, in fact, a faction of the 'left', ideologically speaking, and share the same statist philosophies even if their sociological
agenda differs.

In an attempt to make this clear, I put up a thread which breaks down the political spectrum more appropriately:

Well although the patriot act was passed by Republicans, Democrats have been doing their part by restricting free speech against whatever they deem
their current agenda. They have also been harassing and generalizing religious people and whites and men.

In addition, liberals have been extremely hostile towards those who are not "intelligent" lately to the extent that it is almost engaging in class
warfare against the poor, to be honest.

I went to a liberal arts college, I've experienced all these things first-hand, they are very hostile people at the moment.

I even went back there to hang out the other day and they are even more hostile than ever. The current college students are not thinking for
themselves, nor do they understand what they are doing, and if someone brings up a legitimate point they start hissing at them and threatening them
basically.

I am keeping an open mind with respect to the term 'progressive'. I have heard many people attribute many different ideological principals to it. I
doubt that most who assign it to themselves have the constitution in mind when they do.

That said, considering how unpopular the guiding principals of this country are, if the term could possibly be interpreted to mean 'alternative'
then yes, a progressive could be considered pro-constitution.

Hmm... well... I'm not supporting either party at the moment. So I don't know what to say - I think that freedoms are important (which neither party
seems to think) and I think that it is important to allow people to make progress if they want to, and to collect taxes in order to have a decent
education system and infrastructure, all kind of ridiculous stuff like that.

People should be free to practice various religions without being harassed, should be free to be either gender or any race without being harassed,
stuff like that.

I also like the idea of small businesses, or at least some way to make progress as an individual without being a slave - like having some say in your
work... Corporate America ends up being very, very soul-less.

----------

However some people think that these things happen in cycles, if that is the case, we are entering some kind of totalitarian cycle that will end at
some point, I dunno -

----------

My mom once said that there really is no difference between right wing and left wing extremists because they both can become fairly totalitarian, in
different ways.

It really isn't a matter of "Left vs. Right" as to who is the most oppressive. That might be reserved for whichever faction is holding the reigns
of power more firmly at any given time. Both of those are just wings supporting the authoritarian ideology people are clutching firmly at this time.
Those wings are a distraction. We should be examining the "vertical" of authoritarian vs. personal autonomy and be willing to allow others to live
as they choose and not how we may wish them to conform to our perceived notion of what we demand of them.

Yeah, we have a Police State well underway in the makings. Both "sides" can take us further down that slope. Quit looking left and right and just
stop the oppression, including your own.

Erongaricuaro
It really isn't a matter of "Left vs. Right" as to who is the most oppressive. That might be reserved for whichever faction is holding the reigns
of power more firmly at any given time. Both of those are just wings supporting the authoritarian ideology people are clutching firmly at this time.
Those wings are a distraction. We should be examining the "vertical" of authoritarian vs. personal autonomy and be willing to allow others to live
as they choose and not how we may wish them to conform to our perceived notion of what we demand of them.

Yeah, we have a Police State well underway in the makings. Both "sides" can take us further down that slope. Quit looking left and right and just
stop the oppression, including your own.

Buster,
sorry that I'm late to the party, but when quoting SCOTUS cases, you might want to go read up on cases within the last 100 years. In the latest
case, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, 2008, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008, the SCOTUS reaffirmed the general
understanding of the Second Amendment:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

Well although the patriot act was passed by Republicans, Democrats have been doing their part by restricting free speech against whatever they deem
their current agenda. They have also been harassing and generalizing religious people and whites and men.

The first part of this is right. Obama did sign the no free speech zones. The rest is pretty much crap. The Obama is against Christians is BS. When
people complained that he was against Christians never took time to look at the laws that were passed long before he took office.

Buster,
sorry that I'm late to the party, but when quoting SCOTUS cases, you might want to go read up on cases within the last 100 years. In the latest
case, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, 2008, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008, the SCOTUS reaffirmed the general
understanding of the Second Amendment:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.

There's nothing left or right about the police state and totalitarianism has historically happened on both sides of the fence look at NK or the
Soviets. Both sides are doing it because the public wants to be tough on crime. There's no conspiracy here, we're getting exactly what we ask for on
a national level. Someone steals something? Give them an outrageous prison sentence as punishment, most even hope the person suffers several prison
rapes. Someone becomes a habitual thief? 3 strikes laws.

As a society we're extremely vindictive towards criminals and that's mirrored in our anti crime laws. It creates harsher and harsher prison
sentences, criminalizes more actions, and makes the prisons worse. Throw in the privatization of prisons and it's exacerbated as there's now a
financial incentive to stay the course. Anyone who speaks out against the incarceration portion of the issue is seen as soft on crime or weak and
gets thrown out of office. If someone speaks out against arming the police and their militarization the person is vilified for not giving the police
the strongest most protective equipment out there and blamed for every cop death out there (which have been declining per capita for decades).

Both sides are doing this and both are equally guilty. Earlier someone blamed Obama for the NDAA, and they're right he is to blame. But so is Bush
who initiated it. So is Romney who said he would expand it. So is McCain who supports it. So is Hillary who backs it. So is Pelosi who passed it.
The entire establishment is to blame for that law and many others. Even the few who are against it are guilty because they've failed to prevent it or
even make it a major national issue.

If you want to change this, don't focus on trying to expose some conspiracy. Start taking it to state and local debates and convincing people that
we're only harming ourselves with draconian laws and militarized police. The vast majority of people support these things. This current state of
affairs is a result of getting EXACTLY what we have asked for as a collective.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.